I think TOR will be just fine, F2P sometimes can be great but in general suck, plus ive seen some vids on GW2 and really its just not my cup of tea, has that aion feel to it, wich puts me off, flashy numbers popping up, no classes no focus, from what ive seen, it just looks a ways off from TOR aswell, wich is another thing that bugs me about this debate. GW2 will keep its fan it has, and pick up a few, TOR will get Star wars fans who couldnt get into SWG or who were not around for it, It will pick up some WOW people cause some are tired of WOW and dont wanna play somthing the sameish, like GW2, TOR also picks up all its bioware fans, and its kotor, masseffect and dragon age fans, Sure DA2 was not the same as DAO but it still sold very well, All you doom and gloomers need to see that just cause you dont like somthing doesnt mean it should fail or not do well, GW2 is free! I hope it makes it, but for my money its TOR all the way, just way more bang for my buck, plus its freaking starwars! come on! use your brain, all in all TOR will make more money wich i guess makes it a win.
Now you're over-analyzing a simple way the average MMO player judges MMOs; quality and size of playerbase.
He's not over-analyizing it, it's really not a hard concept to grasp is it? There's a big difference between what makes GW a success and what makes WoW a success as an example.
How does the average player judge it anyway? I wouldn't know the answer to that. Right now I see three people arguing one point, Imoh, Mav and myself, I see one judging it another way, you. Wouldn't that mean the average right now, is judging it differently than you?
You guys are way too caught up in subscribers to recongnize a game like GW2 can possibly have more players 6-12 months later with the buy to play model.
I played GW1 for like 1 day, how would they count me? I know I counted myself as a sucker.
You can apply that same mindset to any MMO. Do we consider all MMOs fairly even in terms of player base because there are different revenue models?
Now you're over-analyzing a simple way the average MMO player judges MMOs; quality and size of playerbase.
He's not over-analyizing it, it's really not a hard concept to grasp is it? There's a big difference between what makes GW a success and what makes WoW a success as an example.
How does the average player judge it anyway? I wouldn't know the answer to that. Right now I see three people arguing one point, Imoh, Mav and myself, I see one judging it another way, you. Wouldn't that mean the average right now, is judging it differently than you?
You guys are way too caught up in subscribers to recongnize a game like GW2 can possibly have more players 6-12 months later with the buy to play model.
I'm not saying anything about which one will have what 6 months after launch. I'm saying the way in which one becomes a success is much different. The average person I would think judges a sub based game based on how many subs it has. There's no way to judge a B2P in this manner, nor a F2P.
Do you view BF2 in the same way you view EVE? I'm sure a BF game has far more people logging in on a day to day basis. As it's a one time purchase you can pick up and play whenever the mood strikes. A sub based game requires more of a commitment for most people.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Now you're over-analyzing a simple way the average MMO player judges MMOs; quality and size of playerbase.
He's not over-analyizing it, it's really not a hard concept to grasp is it? There's a big difference between what makes GW a success and what makes WoW a success as an example.
How does the average player judge it anyway? I wouldn't know the answer to that. Right now I see three people arguing one point, Imoh, Mav and myself, I see one judging it another way, you. Wouldn't that mean the average right now, is judging it differently than you?
You guys are way too caught up in subscribers to recongnize a game like GW2 can possibly have more players 6-12 months later with the buy to play model.
I'm not saying anything about which one will have what 6 months after launch. I'm saying the way in which one becomes a success is much different. The average person I would think judges a sub based game based on how many subs it has. There's no way to judge a B2P in this manner, nor a F2P.
Do you view BF2 in the same way you view EVE? I'm sure a BF game has far more people logging in on a day to day basis. As it's a one time purchase you can pick up and play whenever the mood strikes. A sub based game requires mroe of a commitment for most people.
Again, who cares about the revenue model. All MMO players care about is game quality and number of other players on that MMO.
Trying to argue you can't compare the player bases of two different MMOs because of revenue model is entering bizarre terrority. Why? Because the MMO community does it all the time.
I don't know.. Many that play MMO have a main game that they subscribe to with either a secondary subscription game to fall back on, or a free to play game (or two) to fall back on.
With GW2 being free to play it will be a very easy decision for me, (currently having no game I pay a subscription fee to, LOTRO Lifer), to subscribe to SW TOR and still buy and play GW2, and I think others may follow suit.
And as far as vaulting it to number 2 MMO, how do you determine that for a game that isn't based on subscription numbers. Box sales won't work for GW2 because how do you track the retention of gamers that aren't paying a subscribtion fee?
Whoa! GW2 is supposed to be BUY TO PLAY (B2P).
Free to play means item mall.
I haven't heard GW2 will have an item mall.
If so, then it's like every other F2P game, except you have to pay for the box.
Question: do you think that a P2P game has an "item mall" if you can buy character slots or server transfers or name/gender changes? Do you think about wow, "it's just like every other F2P game" because you can buy cosmetic pets?
If so, is there any "true" P2P game without an item mall at this moment? And if not, why differentiate between GW2 and SWTOR just because there is no monthly sub? (aside from the matter of counting subscriptions, which I agree with and which is why ANet will not ever say they have "beat" SWTOR or have more "subs" than SWTOR - or less, for that matter - all they will report on is sales figures.)
IMO, what makes a game an Item Mall game is putting real life cash into the game world.
And, it comes in degrees, from benign, to harming the game, IMO.
A character slot is not, IMO, putting real life cash inside the game world, nor is a server transfer.
Your gear still has to be purchaced with money made INSIDE the game world, or from drops from Mobs INSIDE the game world.
No dollar bills are inside the game world.
Add vanity pets and that's slightly worse, because now you have real life cash, dollar bills, inside the game world.
However, not that bad, because they have no stats.
Add items that have stats inside the gameworld, for real life cash, and now I don't want to play that game.
If you can buy anything with a stat with real life cash and it's INSIDE the game world, I don't want to play that game.
Whether it's a shield, a sword, a hat that gives a bonus to mana, an XP potion, etc.
Here's why it makes a difference if the game is B2P or P2P.
P2P requires me to do something every month, to continue to be able to access the server. I must pay, usually 14.95. So I know you are at least active in the game enough to pay 14.95.
With B2P you need do nothing.
I don't know if you are playing the game, not playing the game, etc. Because you didn't have to do anything, except buy the box. It doesn't matter if you play, don't play. You don't have to pay, you don't have to do anything.
You could do nothing for a year, and then log on.
But the P2P player cannot do nothing for a year, and still be a "sub". Every month, they must pay.
I'm not saying anything about which one will have what 6 months after launch. I'm saying the way in which one becomes a success is much different. The average person I would think judges a sub based game based on how many subs it has. There's no way to judge a B2P in this manner, nor a F2P.
Do you view BF2 in the same way you view EVE? I'm sure a BF game has far more people logging in on a day to day basis. As it's a one time purchase you can pick up and play whenever the mood strikes. A sub based game requires mroe of a commitment for most people.
Again, who cares about the revenue model. All MMO players care about is game quality and number of other players on that MMO.
Trying to argue you can't compare the player bases of two different MMOs because of revenue model is entering bizarre terrority. Why? Because the MMO community does it all the time.
I for one care about the revenue model because one I have to pay for one I don't.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Now you're over-analyzing a simple way the average MMO player judges MMOs; quality and size of playerbase.
He's not over-analyizing it, it's really not a hard concept to grasp is it? There's a big difference between what makes GW a success and what makes WoW a success as an example.
How does the average player judge it anyway? I wouldn't know the answer to that. Right now I see three people arguing one point, Imoh, Mav and myself, I see one judging it another way, you. Wouldn't that mean the average right now, is judging it differently than you?
You guys are way too caught up in subscribers to recongnize a game like GW2 can possibly have more players 6-12 months later with the buy to play model.
I'm not saying anything about which one will have what 6 months after launch. I'm saying the way in which one becomes a success is much different. The average person I would think judges a sub based game based on how many subs it has. There's no way to judge a B2P in this manner, nor a F2P.
Do you view BF2 in the same way you view EVE? I'm sure a BF game has far more people logging in on a day to day basis. As it's a one time purchase you can pick up and play whenever the mood strikes. A sub based game requires mroe of a commitment for most people.
Again, who cares about the revenue model. All MMO players care about is game quality and number of other players on that MMO.
Trying to argue you can't compare the player bases of two different MMOs because of revenue model is entering bizarre terrority. Why? Because the MMO community does it all the time.
I have to agree with Mal on this one. On what criteria do you base the "beating"? It cannot be box sales because often MMO's are more worried about sub numbers and do not monitor box sales nor is it reflective of the # of players. It can't be subs because a game like GW2 does not have subscribers. It cannot be rentention because again, no subscribers.
So what statistic will be used to determine who beats who?
Like Mal said about BF and EVE....What game is a bigger success COD or WOW? It is two totally different games with two totally different measures of success. And if we are not going to take revenue, subs, and all of that into account then neither GW2 or TOR will be as successful as Angry Birds and Farmville.
I'm sure if GW2 breaks records they would release active player numbers. And Bioware will more than likely release subscription numbers.
Seems fairly simple to me. No rocket science involved.
Casey Schreiner from G4 (The MMO Report): "I think that Guild Wars2 is going to be the next big MMO. I think it's gonna beat SWTOR. I think it's gonna be a better game than SWToR... I think with SWToR you're gonna see a lot of people sign up initially,, they're gonna find out that it's a well made game in SW universe that doesn't offer a lot of innovation, and when they see what GW is doing they're gonna be shocked."
Upfront I am going to say I am currently dissapointed with what I have seen from SWToR. I will likely still buy it and play through a bounty hunter character but I severaly doubt the game has enough going for it to keep me playing past maybe 3 months. With that out of the way....
I think this is a very skewed view of GW2 VS SWToR. TBH most of the players I know from my own guild and other guilds in my geographic region are looking forward to SWTOR primarily because it is a sci-fi setting (helps that it is star wars) and not fantasy. OFFTOPIC: This is also one of the reasons I think Fallen Earth will do very well once it goes Freemium.
Guild wars is the same fantasy setting many of us have been used to playing for years now and are bored of it.....
2 games in different Genres, I think he is completely overlooking that important fact.
I'm not saying anything about which one will have what 6 months after launch. I'm saying the way in which one becomes a success is much different. The average person I would think judges a sub based game based on how many subs it has. There's no way to judge a B2P in this manner, nor a F2P.
Do you view BF2 in the same way you view EVE? I'm sure a BF game has far more people logging in on a day to day basis. As it's a one time purchase you can pick up and play whenever the mood strikes. A sub based game requires mroe of a commitment for most people.
Again, who cares about the revenue model. All MMO players care about is game quality and number of other players on that MMO.
Trying to argue you can't compare the player bases of two different MMOs because of revenue model is entering bizarre terrority. Why? Because the MMO community does it all the time.
I for one care about the revenue model because one I have to pay for one I don't.
Totally out of context. Re-read what I wrote. Geez!
I don't know.. Many that play MMO have a main game that they subscribe to with either a secondary subscription game to fall back on, or a free to play game (or two) to fall back on.
With GW2 being free to play it will be a very easy decision for me, (currently having no game I pay a subscription fee to, LOTRO Lifer), to subscribe to SW TOR and still buy and play GW2, and I think others may follow suit.
And as far as vaulting it to number 2 MMO, how do you determine that for a game that isn't based on subscription numbers. Box sales won't work for GW2 because how do you track the retention of gamers that aren't paying a subscribtion fee?
Whoa! GW2 is supposed to be BUY TO PLAY (B2P).
Free to play means item mall.
I haven't heard GW2 will have an item mall.
If so, then it's like every other F2P game, except you have to pay for the box.
Question: do you think that a P2P game has an "item mall" if you can buy character slots or server transfers or name/gender changes? Do you think about wow, "it's just like every other F2P game" because you can buy cosmetic pets?
If so, is there any "true" P2P game without an item mall at this moment? And if not, why differentiate between GW2 and SWTOR just because there is no monthly sub? (aside from the matter of counting subscriptions, which I agree with and which is why ANet will not ever say they have "beat" SWTOR or have more "subs" than SWTOR - or less, for that matter - all they will report on is sales figures.)
IMO, what makes a game an Item Mall game is putting real life cash into the game world.
And, it comes in degrees, from benign, to harming the game, IMO.
A character slot is not, IMO, putting real life cash inside the game world, nor is a server transfer.
Your gear still has to be purchaced with money made INSIDE the game world, or from drops from Mobs INSIDE the game world.
No dollar bills are inside the game world.
Add vanity pets and that's slightly worse, because now you have real life cash, dollar bills, inside the game world.
However, not that bad, because they have no stats.
Add items that have stats inside the gameworld, for real life cash, and now I don't want to play that game.
If you can buy anything with a stat with real life cash and it's INSIDE the game world, I don't want to play that game.
Whether it's a shield, a sword, a hat that gives a bonus to mana, an XP potion, etc.
Here's why it makes a difference if the game is B2P or P2P.
P2P requires me to do something every month, to continue to be able to access the server. I must pay, usually 14.95. So I know you are at least active in the game enough to pay 14.95.
With B2P you need do nothing.
I don't know if you are playing the game, not playing the game, etc. Because you didn't have to do anything, except buy the box. It doesn't matter if you play, don't play. You don't have to pay, you don't have to do anything.
You could do nothing for a year, and then log on.
But the P2P player cannot do nothing for a year, and still be a "sub". Every month, they must pay.
That's the difference.
No p2p gives you content updates. Will GW2 give you content updates not sold in an expansion?
Who cares about GW2 player base? they don't generate sub revenue, so only box sales count.
Once the box is sold, they made their money and that's that. Whether someone plays an hour or a year is irrelevant.
The players care.
I know, I know, players are irrelevant, but I would like to think that having more players will create a better game experience, specifically in the WvW PvP of GW2.
Not 'This makes this game better than SWToR', but 'GW2 with more players is better than GW2 with less players, from a player's perspective'.
So.... I care about the GW2 player base!
Not that I'm suggesting that the amount of happy Meowheads should be the new metric by which MMOs should be judged. Just answering your question of who cares.
Originally posted by MMO.Maverick
Besides, the whole 'this game is gonna beat that game' speculation is kinda childish (didn't watch the video, maybe in context his comments made more sense and were less epeenish and childish)
It didn't really come across as childish to me, listening to the video. He just thinks GW2 is going to do exceedingly well. Not 'Because SW:ToR will do bad'.... because the man raves about SW:ToR and its pure awesomeness ALL THE TIME. Like that's his thing. IT should be his middle name 'SW:ToR is awesome'. It's just he apparently JUST discovered GW2 and hey... he thinks it'll be a smashing financial success. (Somewhere between 'SW:ToR will print bucketloads of money' and '... but of course neither game will beat WoW' from his comments)
I personally think both games will print tons of money if they come out half as good as they promise, and the investors will be plenty happy with both games.
Is it possible one will do better than the other? Yes. (I'd be weirded out if they both do equally as well. It'd be like some weird karma thing.) Is it childish to opine that it's one particular one? Nah. It's just pure speculation based off of favorable impressions of gameplay.
I'm not saying anything about which one will have what 6 months after launch. I'm saying the way in which one becomes a success is much different. The average person I would think judges a sub based game based on how many subs it has. There's no way to judge a B2P in this manner, nor a F2P.
Do you view BF2 in the same way you view EVE? I'm sure a BF game has far more people logging in on a day to day basis. As it's a one time purchase you can pick up and play whenever the mood strikes. A sub based game requires mroe of a commitment for most people.
Again, who cares about the revenue model. All MMO players care about is game quality and number of other players on that MMO.
Trying to argue you can't compare the player bases of two different MMOs because of revenue model is entering bizarre terrority. Why? Because the MMO community does it all the time.
I for one care about the revenue model because one I have to pay for one I don't.
Totally out of context. Re-read what I wrote. Geez!
You asked who cares about the revenue model, I said why I do, out of context? I don't care what others think, my opinion is about my opinion not the MMO industries.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I will bet you here and now that TOR will out sell GW2 in Box sales alone.
And since quality in in the eye of the beholder dont give me that "Well GW2 will be better" bullshit.
Eventuallly GW2 might have more box sales... I paid 7 bucks for GW1 last year, and they'll start doing the same thing with GW2 in order to try to bring their numbers up.
I have to agree with Mal on this one. On what criteria do you base the "beating"? It cannot be box sales because often MMO's are more worried about sub numbers and do not monitor box sales nor is it reflective of the # of players. It can't be subs because a game like GW2 does not have subscribers. It cannot be rentention because again, no subscribers.
So what statistic will be used to determine who beats who?
Like Mal said about BF and EVE....What game is a bigger success COD or WOW? It is two totally different games with two totally different measures of success. And if we are not going to take revenue, subs, and all of that into account then neither GW2 or TOR will be as successful as Angry Birds and Farmville.
I'm sure if GW2 breaks records they would release active player numbers. And Bioware will more than likely release subscription numbers.
Seems fairly simple to me. No rocket science involved.
Active players is not equal to subscription numbers. That, in the data and statistics world, is apples and oranges. As another poster said, what is an active player? How many do I need to logon to be counted as active? The game is buy to play so I may logon once every 6 months just to check it out. Am I active? What about 3 months or monthly?
Again, two different sets of data and two different levels of success that are independent of opne another and in no way able to be correlated.
So you're saying the player bases can never be compared due to different revenue models? And yet the MMO community compares them all the time.
I have to agree with Mal on this one. On what criteria do you base the "beating"? It cannot be box sales because often MMO's are more worried about sub numbers and do not monitor box sales nor is it reflective of the # of players. It can't be subs because a game like GW2 does not have subscribers. It cannot be rentention because again, no subscribers.
So what statistic will be used to determine who beats who?
Like Mal said about BF and EVE....What game is a bigger success COD or WOW? It is two totally different games with two totally different measures of success. And if we are not going to take revenue, subs, and all of that into account then neither GW2 or TOR will be as successful as Angry Birds and Farmville.
I'm sure if GW2 breaks records they would release active player numbers. And Bioware will more than likely release subscription numbers.
Seems fairly simple to me. No rocket science involved.
Active players is not equal to subscription numbers. That, in the data and statistics world, is apples and oranges. As another poster said, what is an active player? How many do I need to logon to be counted as active? The game is buy to play so I may logon once every 6 months just to check it out. Am I active? What about 3 months or monthly?
Again, two different sets of data and two different levels of success that are independent of opne another and in no way able to be correlated.
So you're saying the player bases can never be compared due to different revenue models? And yet the MMO community compares them all the time.
Because people compare apples and oranges all of the time. Just because people make the comparison, doesn't make it valid.
Casey Schreiner from G4 (The MMO Report): "I think that Guild Wars2 is going to be the next big MMO. I think it's gonna beat SWTOR. I think it's gonna be a better game than SWToR... I think with SWToR you're gonna see a lot of people sign up initially,, they're gonna find out that it's a well made game in SW universe that doesn't offer a lot of innovation, and when they see what GW is doing they're gonna be shocked."
I will bet you here and now that TOR will out sell GW2 in Box sales alone.
And since quality in in the eye of the beholder dont give me that "Well GW2 will be better" bullshit.
Eventuallly GW2 might have more box sales... I paid 7 bucks for GW1 last year, and they'll start doing the same thing with GW2 in order to try to bring their numbers up.
Doubt it Mass Effect one sold 7 million copies not to long ago, granted it was on three concols including PC, But Anet counts all of the expantions sold for GW which was four if I am not mistaken.
So there you have it Guild Wars 1 in its 6 years and 3 or 4 xpacs couldn't outsell Mass Effect and its 3 year and no xpacs counted.
I have to agree with Mal on this one. On what criteria do you base the "beating"? It cannot be box sales because often MMO's are more worried about sub numbers and do not monitor box sales nor is it reflective of the # of players. It can't be subs because a game like GW2 does not have subscribers. It cannot be rentention because again, no subscribers.
So what statistic will be used to determine who beats who?
Like Mal said about BF and EVE....What game is a bigger success COD or WOW? It is two totally different games with two totally different measures of success. And if we are not going to take revenue, subs, and all of that into account then neither GW2 or TOR will be as successful as Angry Birds and Farmville.
I'm sure if GW2 breaks records they would release active player numbers. And Bioware will more than likely release subscription numbers.
Seems fairly simple to me. No rocket science involved.
Active players is not equal to subscription numbers. That, in the data and statistics world, is apples and oranges. As another poster said, what is an active player? How many do I need to logon to be counted as active? The game is buy to play so I may logon once every 6 months just to check it out. Am I active? What about 3 months or monthly?
Again, two different sets of data and two different levels of success that are independent of opne another and in no way able to be correlated.
So you're saying the player bases can never be compared due to different revenue models? And yet the MMO community compares them all the time.
Because people compare apples and oranges all of the time. Just because people make the comparison, doesn't make it valid.
So each time an articlle is written on an MMO site comparing player bases you instantly write "bullshit! apples and oranges!"?
I don't know.. Many that play MMO have a main game that they subscribe to with either a secondary subscription game to fall back on, or a free to play game (or two) to fall back on.
With GW2 being free to play it will be a very easy decision for me, (currently having no game I pay a subscription fee to, LOTRO Lifer), to subscribe to SW TOR and still buy and play GW2, and I think others may follow suit.
And as far as vaulting it to number 2 MMO, how do you determine that for a game that isn't based on subscription numbers. Box sales won't work for GW2 because how do you track the retention of gamers that aren't paying a subscribtion fee?
Whoa! GW2 is supposed to be BUY TO PLAY (B2P).
Free to play means item mall.
I haven't heard GW2 will have an item mall.
If so, then it's like every other F2P game, except you have to pay for the box.
Question: do you think that a P2P game has an "item mall" if you can buy character slots or server transfers or name/gender changes? Do you think about wow, "it's just like every other F2P game" because you can buy cosmetic pets?
If so, is there any "true" P2P game without an item mall at this moment? And if not, why differentiate between GW2 and SWTOR just because there is no monthly sub? (aside from the matter of counting subscriptions, which I agree with and which is why ANet will not ever say they have "beat" SWTOR or have more "subs" than SWTOR - or less, for that matter - all they will report on is sales figures.)
IMO, what makes a game an Item Mall game is putting real life cash into the game world.
And, it comes in degrees, from benign, to harming the game, IMO.
A character slot is not, IMO, putting real life cash inside the game world, nor is a server transfer.
Your gear still has to be purchaced with money made INSIDE the game world, or from drops from Mobs INSIDE the game world.
No dollar bills are inside the game world.
Add vanity pets and that's slightly worse, because now you have real life cash, dollar bills, inside the game world.
However, not that bad, because they have no stats.
Add items that have stats inside the gameworld, for real life cash, and now I don't want to play that game.
If you can buy anything with a stat with real life cash and it's INSIDE the game world, I don't want to play that game.
Whether it's a shield, a sword, a hat that gives a bonus to mana, an XP potion, etc.
Here's why it makes a difference if the game is B2P or P2P.
P2P requires me to do something every month, to continue to be able to access the server. I must pay, usually 14.95. So I know you are at least active in the game enough to pay 14.95.
With B2P you need do nothing.
I don't know if you are playing the game, not playing the game, etc. Because you didn't have to do anything, except buy the box. It doesn't matter if you play, don't play. You don't have to pay, you don't have to do anything.
You could do nothing for a year, and then log on.
But the P2P player cannot do nothing for a year, and still be a "sub". Every month, they must pay.
That's the difference.
If that's how you define an item mall, then no, GW does not have one and neither will GW2. No items with stats will ever be sold with real cash in-game; that's not how ArenaNet rolls.
I will bet you here and now that TOR will out sell GW2 in Box sales alone.
And since quality in in the eye of the beholder dont give me that "Well GW2 will be better" bullshit.
Eventuallly GW2 might have more box sales... I paid 7 bucks for GW1 last year, and they'll start doing the same thing with GW2 in order to try to bring their numbers up.
Doubt it Mass Effect one sold 7 million copies not to long ago, granted it was on three concols including PC, But Anet counts all of the expantions sold for GW which was four if I am not mistaken.
So there you have it Guild Wars 1 in its 6 years and 3 or 4 xpacs couldn't outsell Mass Effect and its 3 year and no xpacs counted.
If that's really how GW1 box sales were counted by Anet, then I think you're right.
I think he is right. I think that people will rush out and go buy The Old Republic and enjoy it but realize after they played through it that they have done this kind of stuff before. I think I will enjoy 2 playthroughs of TOR but as soon as GW2 comes I'm off to GW2. Perhaps the ex Mythic/EA employee who said TOR had nothing to offer besides story was right after all. Guess we will all find out soon enough.
I don't know.. Many that play MMO have a main game that they subscribe to with either a secondary subscription game to fall back on, or a free to play game (or two) to fall back on.
With GW2 being free to play it will be a very easy decision for me, (currently having no game I pay a subscription fee to, LOTRO Lifer), to subscribe to SW TOR and still buy and play GW2, and I think others may follow suit.
And as far as vaulting it to number 2 MMO, how do you determine that for a game that isn't based on subscription numbers. Box sales won't work for GW2 because how do you track the retention of gamers that aren't paying a subscribtion fee?
Whoa! GW2 is supposed to be BUY TO PLAY (B2P).
Free to play means item mall.
I haven't heard GW2 will have an item mall.
If so, then it's like every other F2P game, except you have to pay for the box.
Question: do you think that a P2P game has an "item mall" if you can buy character slots or server transfers or name/gender changes? Do you think about wow, "it's just like every other F2P game" because you can buy cosmetic pets?
If so, is there any "true" P2P game without an item mall at this moment? And if not, why differentiate between GW2 and SWTOR just because there is no monthly sub? (aside from the matter of counting subscriptions, which I agree with and which is why ANet will not ever say they have "beat" SWTOR or have more "subs" than SWTOR - or less, for that matter - all they will report on is sales figures.)
IMO, what makes a game an Item Mall game is putting real life cash into the game world.
And, it comes in degrees, from benign, to harming the game, IMO.
A character slot is not, IMO, putting real life cash inside the game world, nor is a server transfer.
Your gear still has to be purchaced with money made INSIDE the game world, or from drops from Mobs INSIDE the game world.
No dollar bills are inside the game world.
Add vanity pets and that's slightly worse, because now you have real life cash, dollar bills, inside the game world.
However, not that bad, because they have no stats.
Add items that have stats inside the gameworld, for real life cash, and now I don't want to play that game.
If you can buy anything with a stat with real life cash and it's INSIDE the game world, I don't want to play that game.
Whether it's a shield, a sword, a hat that gives a bonus to mana, an XP potion, etc.
Here's why it makes a difference if the game is B2P or P2P.
P2P requires me to do something every month, to continue to be able to access the server. I must pay, usually 14.95. So I know you are at least active in the game enough to pay 14.95.
With B2P you need do nothing.
I don't know if you are playing the game, not playing the game, etc. Because you didn't have to do anything, except buy the box. It doesn't matter if you play, don't play. You don't have to pay, you don't have to do anything.
You could do nothing for a year, and then log on.
But the P2P player cannot do nothing for a year, and still be a "sub". Every month, they must pay.
That's the difference.
No p2p gives you content updates. Will GW2 give you content updates not sold in an expansion?
Yes; it has already been stated that there will be (at least) new Dynamic Events added periodically for people to discover and participate in, at no extra charge. As for dungeons and instanced content, that has yet to be determined AFAIK.
I have to agree with Mal on this one. On what criteria do you base the "beating"? It cannot be box sales because often MMO's are more worried about sub numbers and do not monitor box sales nor is it reflective of the # of players. It can't be subs because a game like GW2 does not have subscribers. It cannot be rentention because again, no subscribers.
So what statistic will be used to determine who beats who?
Like Mal said about BF and EVE....What game is a bigger success COD or WOW? It is two totally different games with two totally different measures of success. And if we are not going to take revenue, subs, and all of that into account then neither GW2 or TOR will be as successful as Angry Birds and Farmville.
I'm sure if GW2 breaks records they would release active player numbers. And Bioware will more than likely release subscription numbers.
Seems fairly simple to me. No rocket science involved.
Active players is not equal to subscription numbers. That, in the data and statistics world, is apples and oranges. As another poster said, what is an active player? How many do I need to logon to be counted as active? The game is buy to play so I may logon once every 6 months just to check it out. Am I active? What about 3 months or monthly?
Again, two different sets of data and two different levels of success that are independent of opne another and in no way able to be correlated.
So you're saying the player bases can never be compared due to different revenue models? And yet the MMO community compares them all the time.
Because people compare apples and oranges all of the time. Just because people make the comparison, doesn't make it valid.
So each time an articlle is written on an MMO site comparing player bases you instantly write "bullshit! apples and oranges!"?
Depends on which games they are comparing and what poing they are trying to make.
Comments
I think TOR will be just fine, F2P sometimes can be great but in general suck, plus ive seen some vids on GW2 and really its just not my cup of tea, has that aion feel to it, wich puts me off, flashy numbers popping up, no classes no focus, from what ive seen, it just looks a ways off from TOR aswell, wich is another thing that bugs me about this debate. GW2 will keep its fan it has, and pick up a few, TOR will get Star wars fans who couldnt get into SWG or who were not around for it, It will pick up some WOW people cause some are tired of WOW and dont wanna play somthing the sameish, like GW2, TOR also picks up all its bioware fans, and its kotor, masseffect and dragon age fans, Sure DA2 was not the same as DAO but it still sold very well, All you doom and gloomers need to see that just cause you dont like somthing doesnt mean it should fail or not do well, GW2 is free! I hope it makes it, but for my money its TOR all the way, just way more bang for my buck, plus its freaking starwars! come on! use your brain, all in all TOR will make more money wich i guess makes it a win.
You can apply that same mindset to any MMO. Do we consider all MMOs fairly even in terms of player base because there are different revenue models?
Of course not. This is getting silly.
I'm not saying anything about which one will have what 6 months after launch. I'm saying the way in which one becomes a success is much different. The average person I would think judges a sub based game based on how many subs it has. There's no way to judge a B2P in this manner, nor a F2P.
Do you view BF2 in the same way you view EVE? I'm sure a BF game has far more people logging in on a day to day basis. As it's a one time purchase you can pick up and play whenever the mood strikes. A sub based game requires more of a commitment for most people.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Again, who cares about the revenue model. All MMO players care about is game quality and number of other players on that MMO.
Trying to argue you can't compare the player bases of two different MMOs because of revenue model is entering bizarre terrority. Why? Because the MMO community does it all the time.
I think this is the first we have seen someone come out and say GW2 will beat SWTOR. I'm betting we will see more of this in near feature.
Guild Wars 2's 50 minutes game play video:
http://n4g.com/news/592585/guild-wars-2-50-minutes-of-pure-gameplay
Everything We Know about GW2:
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/287180/page/1
IMO, what makes a game an Item Mall game is putting real life cash into the game world.
And, it comes in degrees, from benign, to harming the game, IMO.
A character slot is not, IMO, putting real life cash inside the game world, nor is a server transfer.
Your gear still has to be purchaced with money made INSIDE the game world, or from drops from Mobs INSIDE the game world.
No dollar bills are inside the game world.
Add vanity pets and that's slightly worse, because now you have real life cash, dollar bills, inside the game world.
However, not that bad, because they have no stats.
Add items that have stats inside the gameworld, for real life cash, and now I don't want to play that game.
If you can buy anything with a stat with real life cash and it's INSIDE the game world, I don't want to play that game.
Whether it's a shield, a sword, a hat that gives a bonus to mana, an XP potion, etc.
Here's why it makes a difference if the game is B2P or P2P.
P2P requires me to do something every month, to continue to be able to access the server. I must pay, usually 14.95. So I know you are at least active in the game enough to pay 14.95.
With B2P you need do nothing.
I don't know if you are playing the game, not playing the game, etc. Because you didn't have to do anything, except buy the box. It doesn't matter if you play, don't play. You don't have to pay, you don't have to do anything.
You could do nothing for a year, and then log on.
But the P2P player cannot do nothing for a year, and still be a "sub". Every month, they must pay.
That's the difference.
I for one care about the revenue model because one I have to pay for one I don't.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I'm sure if GW2 breaks records they would release active player numbers. And Bioware will more than likely release subscription numbers.
Seems fairly simple to me. No rocket science involved.
Upfront I am going to say I am currently dissapointed with what I have seen from SWToR. I will likely still buy it and play through a bounty hunter character but I severaly doubt the game has enough going for it to keep me playing past maybe 3 months. With that out of the way....
I think this is a very skewed view of GW2 VS SWToR. TBH most of the players I know from my own guild and other guilds in my geographic region are looking forward to SWTOR primarily because it is a sci-fi setting (helps that it is star wars) and not fantasy. OFFTOPIC: This is also one of the reasons I think Fallen Earth will do very well once it goes Freemium.
Guild wars is the same fantasy setting many of us have been used to playing for years now and are bored of it.....
2 games in different Genres, I think he is completely overlooking that important fact.
Totally out of context. Re-read what I wrote. Geez!
No p2p gives you content updates. Will GW2 give you content updates not sold in an expansion?
In Bioware we trust!
How does a B2P game "beat" a P2P one?
I will bet you here and now that TOR will out sell GW2 in Box sales alone.
And since quality in in the eye of the beholder dont give me that "Well GW2 will be better" bullshit.
I don't care about innovation I care about fun.
The players care.
I know, I know, players are irrelevant, but I would like to think that having more players will create a better game experience, specifically in the WvW PvP of GW2.
Not 'This makes this game better than SWToR', but 'GW2 with more players is better than GW2 with less players, from a player's perspective'.
So.... I care about the GW2 player base!
Not that I'm suggesting that the amount of happy Meowheads should be the new metric by which MMOs should be judged. Just answering your question of who cares.
It didn't really come across as childish to me, listening to the video. He just thinks GW2 is going to do exceedingly well. Not 'Because SW:ToR will do bad'.... because the man raves about SW:ToR and its pure awesomeness ALL THE TIME. Like that's his thing. IT should be his middle name 'SW:ToR is awesome'. It's just he apparently JUST discovered GW2 and hey... he thinks it'll be a smashing financial success. (Somewhere between 'SW:ToR will print bucketloads of money' and '... but of course neither game will beat WoW' from his comments)
I personally think both games will print tons of money if they come out half as good as they promise, and the investors will be plenty happy with both games.
Is it possible one will do better than the other? Yes. (I'd be weirded out if they both do equally as well.
It'd be like some weird karma thing.) Is it childish to opine that it's one particular one? Nah. It's just pure speculation based off of favorable impressions of gameplay.
You asked who cares about the revenue model, I said why I do, out of context? I don't care what others think, my opinion is about my opinion not the MMO industries.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Eventuallly GW2 might have more box sales... I paid 7 bucks for GW1 last year, and they'll start doing the same thing with GW2 in order to try to bring their numbers up.
So you're saying the player bases can never be compared due to different revenue models? And yet the MMO community compares them all the time.
Because people compare apples and oranges all of the time. Just because people make the comparison, doesn't make it valid.
I'll toss in my professional opinion and state that I agree with Casey, and have been saying the same thing for several years now.
I still look forward to playing Swtor, though.
Content Writer for RTSGuru.com
And overall bitter old man.
Doubt it Mass Effect one sold 7 million copies not to long ago, granted it was on three concols including PC, But Anet counts all of the expantions sold for GW which was four if I am not mistaken.
So there you have it Guild Wars 1 in its 6 years and 3 or 4 xpacs couldn't outsell Mass Effect and its 3 year and no xpacs counted.
I don't care about innovation I care about fun.
So each time an articlle is written on an MMO site comparing player bases you instantly write "bullshit! apples and oranges!"?
If that's how you define an item mall, then no, GW does not have one and neither will GW2. No items with stats will ever be sold with real cash in-game; that's not how ArenaNet rolls.
If that's really how GW1 box sales were counted by Anet, then I think you're right.
I think he is right. I think that people will rush out and go buy The Old Republic and enjoy it but realize after they played through it that they have done this kind of stuff before. I think I will enjoy 2 playthroughs of TOR but as soon as GW2 comes I'm off to GW2. Perhaps the ex Mythic/EA employee who said TOR had nothing to offer besides story was right after all. Guess we will all find out soon enough.
Yes; it has already been stated that there will be (at least) new Dynamic Events added periodically for people to discover and participate in, at no extra charge. As for dungeons and instanced content, that has yet to be determined AFAIK.
Depends on which games they are comparing and what poing they are trying to make.